Rereading Justice in the Amsal Christy Sitepu Case

Amid the development of the creative economy, investment, and innovation, the legal approach must not only be firm but also adaptive, intelligent, and contextual.

Jakarta (ANTARA) - The case ensnaring Amsal Christy Sitepu is not merely a legal matter. It lies at the intersection of creativity, legal interpretation, and public sense of justice, a space that often gives rise to not only debate but also unease about the direction of our law enforcement.

This affair began with something that, at first, seemed ordinary. The project to produce profile videos for 20 villages in Karo Regency, North Sumatra, from 2020 to 2022 proceeded as is common in the creative industry. Through CV Promiseland, Amsal handled the production at a value of Rp30 million per village. The process involved revisions, intensive communication with clients, and creative adjustments, a working pattern that is commonplace, even necessary, in the audiovisual world.

However, the dynamics changed when the Karo District Prosecutor’s Office uncovered allegations of budget inflation (mark-up). The spotlight was directed at production components such as concept development, editing, dubbing, and the use of technical equipment—elements deemed by auditors to “should have a value of zero.”

From here, the legal construction began to take shape: creative work was reduced to a table of numbers, then drawn into the framework of alleged state losses amounting to Rp202 million.

At this point, the issue becomes more fundamental than mere figures: can the creative process be measured by rigid administrative logic? Or is this precisely where the law is tested on its ability to understand realities that are not always linear?

The trial then unveiled a more complete layer. The village heads as service users expressed satisfaction with the work results. There were no objections, let alone direct claims of loss from the paying parties. On the other hand, Amsal asserted that all the cost components in question were integral parts of the production process, something that in industry practice cannot always be mechanically broken down into conventional cost standards.

The panel of judges at the Medan District Court delivered a pivotal turning point in their verdict on 1 April 2026. The Medan District Court acquitted Amsal Christy Sitepu and stated that the defendant was not proven to have committed a criminal offence.

In their considerations, the panel of judges assessed that price differences cannot be directly categorised as unlawful acts. The videography industry was deemed to lack standard pricing, so the value of services greatly depends on the concept, production quality, and user needs.

The acquittal verdict not only freed the defendant but also restored his dignity. More than that, this decision reaffirms a principle often forgotten: that the law must not lose its context.

When the element of “unlawful act” is not proven, there is no basis for imposing criminal penalties. Here, substantive justice finds its meaning, not merely executing legal texts, but reading the realities underlying a case.

Substantive justice

Interestingly, attention to this case also came from the Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR RI). Chairman of Commission III of the DPR, Habiburokhman, emphasised that law enforcement in this case must prioritise substantive justice, not merely formalistic legal certainty.

The call to prioritise substantive justice shows that the law is never truly neutral in a vacuum. It is always intertwined with public aspirations, social dynamics, and demands for common sense. In this framework, such involvement can be read not as intervention, but as a form of social control to keep law enforcement within the orbit of justice.

This case ultimately becomes a mirror and at the same time a warning. It shows how the law can slip when creative realities are forced into a narrow administrative framework. Yet at the same time, it also demonstrates that the judicial system still has correction mechanisms, a space where justice can be restored.

Furthermore, this case carries an important message for the future of law enforcement in Indonesia. Amid the development of the creative economy, investment, and innovation, the legal approach is not enough to be merely firm; it must be adaptive, intelligent, and contextual.

Without that, the law risks becoming a tool that hinders rather than protects.

This acquittal is not merely the end of a case. It is an affirmation that the state should be present to provide certainty and protection, not to create fear, especially for those working in areas not fully understood by conventional legal frameworks.

In a broader context, the Amsal Christy Sitepu case also becomes a test for national legal reform, including the implementation of a more adaptive Criminal Code (KUHP) and Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) towards humanitarian values, creativity, and development needs. This case has the potential to become an important precedent for protecting creative workers from easy criminalisation in government goods and services procurement projects.

In the end, the Medan District Court’s decision affirms one essential thing: justice does not arise from blind adherence to procedures, but from the courage to understand the truth holistically. It demands sensitivity to trial facts, moral awareness, and appreciation of the values alive in society.

And there, the law finds its most human face.